Web Pages

Articles

"The Castle (1997; directed by Rob Sitch) is also a movie about eminent domain: the so-called right of a government to seize private property for a public use, such as a freeway, in exchange for what the government deems to be fair-market value. Thus the movie's title spins off the maxim, 'A man's home is his castle.'"

An End to Eminent Domain Abuse?, by George Leef, Future of Freedom, Apr 2005
Published just two months before the unfortunate Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court decision, expressed hope that the court would rectify the 1954 Berman v. Parker ruling

"The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment states that government shall not take private property except for 'public use' and must then pay 'just compensation' for it. Sad to say, governments now routinely take land for projects that can be termed 'public use' only by distorting the meaning of words, and, to make matters worse, the owners seldom receive anything close to 'just compensation.' For many landowners, eminent domain is merely a fancy term for a legal mugging."

"In the early 1990s, Atlantic City resident Vera Coking found herself in the sights of a developer who wanted to turn the property on which she lived into a casino parking lot. The developer made what he thought was a good offer, but she refused. The developer became incensed, and instead of further trying to convince Coking to sell or finding other land, he did what a certain kind of businessman has increasingly been able to do in modern times. He pursued a political 'solution.' He convinced a city redevelopment agency to use the power of eminent domain to force Coking to sell. The developer was Donald Trump."

Does the Market Commodify Everything?, by Thomas Woods, Mises Daily, 18 Sep 2006
Contrasts the behavior of participants in a free market vs. the state's attitude towards those it considers its subjects

"In the case of eminent domain, where the state confiscates your property for its own purposes, you will be paid something, but the state itself will decide exactly what it will pay you. How is this preferable to a world in which each individual is allowed to declare the terms on which he will dispose of his person and property, and in which no exchange takes place unless both parties voluntarily agree to it?"

Eminent-Domain Chutzpah, by Sheldon Richman, 30 Oct 2006
Comments on an eminent domain case in Riviera Beach, Florida where a developer is threatening to sue the city council for reneging on a supposed deal

"The victims of eminent domain are usually working-class people who are forced to sacrifice their homes for the sake of luxury homes and shops. Sure, they get paid something, but it's not a true market price and some of these folks don't want to move at any price. Fortunately, the [Kelo vs. New London] Court ruling unleashed a public backlash against eminent domain, and in response, over 20 states, including Florida, passed restrictions on their cities' power to take people's homes for private development."

"Going back to 1954, the Court has allowed property seizures where the reason is ... for a private investment where it is alleged that there will be a public benefit. ... Even if some project should prove to be commercially profitable, there isn't much reason to believe that 'the public' will receive 'substantial benefits.'"

"Eminent domain is the doctrine that government is the ultimate landlord of the country and people hold their property at the pleasure of the state. If it wants the land, it can take it. To be sure, the Constitution says it has to pay for the land. But there can be no 'just compensation' in a forced sale. What makes compensation just is consent, which is absent with eminent domain."

"Between 1949 and 1971, however, urban renewal razed five times as many low-income housing units as it created and evicted more than one million people from their homes. In one of the first major challenges to the federal urban-renewal program, a federal district court struck down a Washington, D.C., land-seizure program in 1953 ... But in November 1954, the Supreme Court overturned the federal district court and effectively gave government officials unlimited power to confiscate and redistribute land."

"A large retail company ... has offered a city significant tax benefits if the city uses eminent domain to take an older strip mall of small businesses and give the big-box retailer the choice location. City Council members: ... Should tell the big retail company to find another city to hornswoggle. Property rights are the foundation of American life - whether you're a single homeowner or Donald Bren - even if, in Kelo, a slim high court majority was too foolish to see it."

"The original purpose of eminent domain was to enable government officials to acquire property to establish places from which to run the government ... for example, courthouses. ... the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and thus applies the restrictions of the Fifth Amendment to the states."

"The establishment of Shenandoah National Park in 1926 is one of the greatest abuses of eminent domain in our country's history. ... It is cases such as this that display the vile nature of government takings, and it would be a proud day for our country should men one day become wise enough to decide that the use of eminent domain should be discarded completely."

The Federal Ripoff, by George Leef, Future of Freedom, Nov 2006
Review of The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money by Timothy P. Carney

"Cheap land is alluring to business, and the prospect of higher tax revenues is alluring to politicians. The fact that eminent domain means the use of force against people — who usually are not fully compensated for their loss — does not trouble either big business moguls or their political henchmen."

"Before proceeding I must say that eminent domain is an assault on individual freedom. ... As a matter of law, this principle is a vestige of absolute monarchy and is contrary to the libertarian spirit of the American founding. As a matter of logic, no 'just compensation' is possible in a forced sale of property, because the only just price is the one freely negotiated by seller and buyer."

"What was really needed was a coherent hearing which started from the ground up and took the very simple position that any time you impose a restriction on land use, the state has to either justify the restriction or pay for the value that is being deprived. ... But that was never done. ... people ... think that for every dollar that the public body wins, the individual loses a dollar. What typically happens is the public wins $1.00 and private owners lose $5.00 or $10. If you do that hundreds upon hundreds of times each year, you have a major drain on the social welfare of the community."